Here is the **HTML code** with improved readability, structured using proper headings, paragraph tags, and formatting—without altering the original content: “`html
Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.
The case of Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. represents a significant judicial examination of disparagement in commercial advertising, particularly in the context of Ayurvedic products regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Dabur, a leading manufacturer of Chyawanprash, sought legal recourse against Patanjali’s advertisements for its product, ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’, alleging that they denigrated Dabur’s ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ and the entire Chyawanprash product category.
The case delves into the delicate balance between permissible comparative advertising and impermissible disparagement, especially when the product in question is a regulated Ayurvedic drug. The Delhi High Court’s ruling provides critical insights into the legal thresholds for advertising claims, the application of statutory regulations, and the protection of commercial speech under the Indian Constitution.
Factual Background
Dabur India Ltd., holding a 61.60% market share in the Chyawanprash category as of October 2024, filed a suit against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., alleging that Patanjali’s advertisements for ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’ disparaged Dabur’s product and the broader Chyawanprash market. The disputed advertisements included a Hindi television commercial (TVC) and Hindi and English print advertisements.
The TVC, narrated by yoga guru Mr. Ramdev, opened with the statement, “Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi ki parampara ke anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?” (translated: “Those who lack knowledge of Ayurveda and the Vedas, how can they prepare original Chyawanprash in accordance with the traditions of Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri, and Chyawanrishi?”). It further claimed that Patanjali’s product, made with 51 precious herbs, was superior to “ordinary” Chyawanprash, which the plaintiff argued indirectly targeted Dabur’s product, widely advertised as containing “40+ herbs.” The print advertisements echoed this narrative, questioning, “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” and positioning Patanjali’s product as superior.
Dabur contended that these claims falsely suggested that other manufacturers, including itself, lacked the requisite Ayurvedic knowledge, thereby misleading consumers and violating regulatory standards. Patanjali defended the advertisements as permissible puffery, arguing that they highlighted their product’s positive attributes without directly referencing Dabur’s product.
Procedural Background
Dabur initiated the suit seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction against Patanjali’s advertisements, along with damages for disparagement. Concurrently, Dabur filed two interim applications: I.A. 49744/2024 to stay the Hindi TVC and print advertisements, and I.A. 419/2025 to stay the English print advertisements. The Delhi High Court heard arguments from both parties.
Dabur’s counsel argued that the advertisements constituted specific and generic disparagement by portraying Dabur’s product as inferior and misleading consumers about the authenticity of other Chyawanprash products. Patanjali’s counsel countered that the advertisements were within the bounds of commercial free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, asserting that no specific reference was made to Dabur’s product and that the claims were mere puffery. The court reviewed the advertisements’ content, relevant statutory provisions, and judicial precedents before issuing its interim ruling.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue was whether Patanjali’s advertisements for ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’ constituted disparagement of Dabur’s ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ and the Chyawanprash product category, and whether such advertisements were permissible under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the principles governing comparative advertising.
The court had to determine if the advertisements’ claims, particularly the use of “ordinary” and the implication that other manufacturers lacked Ayurvedic knowledge, were misleading, untruthful, or disparaging, and whether they warranted interim injunctive relief.
Discussion on Judgments
The court extensively relied on judicial precedents to frame its analysis of disparagement and comparative advertising. Dabur cited:
- Colgate Palmolive Company and Anr. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4986
- Gillette India Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1126
Patanjali relied on:
- Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8112
- Marico Limited v. Adani Wilmar Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 386
Other relevant cases considered:
- Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Limited and Another v. Wipro Enterprises (P) Limited, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3376
- Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., 2006 SCC OnLine Del 351
- Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd., 1996 SCC OnLine Del 178
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The court noted that Chyawanprash, as an Ayurvedic drug under Section 3(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, must be manufactured in accordance with formulae in authoritative texts listed in the First Schedule. The Act does not mandate that manufacturers possess specific Ayurvedic knowledge beyond adherence to these formulae, rendering Patanjali’s claim that other manufacturers lack such knowledge false and misleading.
The court found that the TVC’s narrative, delivered by Mr. Ramdev, suggested that competitors’ products were not authentic, constituting generic disparagement. The print advertisements’ reference to “ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs” was a direct attack on Dabur’s product.
The court distinguished puffery from disparagement, emphasizing that puffery involves exaggerated claims, while disparagement includes misleading statements harmful to a competitor’s reputation. The term “ordinary” was found to be a disparaging assertion. The Ministry of AYUSH’s 2021 notification on misleading advertisements was also cited.
Applying the “reasonable man” test from Reckitt Benckiser v. Wipro Enterprises, the court concluded that the advertisements misled consumers into believing only Patanjali’s product was authentic, causing irreparable harm.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief, restraining Patanjali from publishing the impugned TVC and print advertisements. Patanjali was directed to remove phrases like:
- “Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi…”
- “Toh ordinary Chyawanprash kyu”
The court allowed the advertisements post modification. Issues like the use of “special,” “51 herbs,” and the mercury content were left for trial.
Law Settled in This Case
This case reinforces the legal principle that comparative advertising is permissible under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, but must not amount to disparagement. For regulated products like Ayurvedic drugs, advertisements must withstand stricter scrutiny. Generic denigration of a product class is also actionable, and interim injunctions are valid where reputational harm is likely.
Case Details
- Case Title: Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.
- Date of Order: July 3, 2025
- Case Number: CS(COMM) 1195/2024
- Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5232
- Name of Court: Delhi High Court
- Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
